Old Strathcona Public Realm Strategy Part II - Strengths and Questions (March 21, 2023)
...Ready, Shoot, Aim
VLOG Overview
Each Ice Sculpture will have a short video presentation followed by key takeaway notes. I will use lots of “I” and “me” to personalize my experiences, with lots of examples. My personality is such that I like to have fun, be a bit irreverent, hence some of my memes, bad puns and (weak) attempts at humour. My goal is to provide a level of nuance to seen and unseen aspects of decision-making processes. I have opinions or positions that may or may not be popular with my planning brothers and sisters, or elected officials. The vlog provides an informed perspective, but my perspectives and opinions based on my experiences studies. Those who know me may also recognize my perspectives may have evolved during and since my studies. (Yes you can teach an old dog new tricks.) Use my perspectives as you see fit. Pitter patter lets get at’er!
Todays Ice Sculpture
Old Strathcona Public Realm Strategy Part II… Strengths and Questions (March 21, 2023)
On March 20 I released a summary of my lived experiences in the Old Strathcona Area to describe the vibe, the essence of the area, and the use of the public realm. It pre-configures my comments in this Ice Sculpture.
Strategies like these are large amorphous creatures that have tremendously complex relationships and elements, and difficult to manage. Sausage making is complex when trying to meet multiple needs especially when high level policy and strategic direction offer competing directives with potentially competing visions. (Welcome to the planner world.) The proverbial rubber hits the road when you apply these broad directives to a particular site or area.
My comments below may seem critical, but they instead are intended to shed light on the nuances of the implementation realities of public realm planning and operationalization of outcomes. Different visions may simply mean prioritizing different strategic directives, but should surface competing needs and options in processes.
Strategy Strengths and Opportunities
The strengths of this strategy to date includes the following:
The strategy is developing land use change options created and considered by the community before they arrive at city council in the form of a plan/public hearing, or worse a land sale agreement. While this seems a given, Edmonton does not always do that for city owned lands (i.e., surplus schools - district planning/zoning).
The strategy has undertaken extensive consultation in terms of the volume of outreaches. The City created a project web page. There is an extensive (but incomplete) amount of material provided.
The strategy is an opportunity to show how spaces created in land use change processes are operationalized transforming spaces into places, with and for the community. Desired outcomes could include:
An celebration, enhancement and expansion of the current cultural/historical programming, looking to the future, with and for the residential and business community. The existing and future activities and events will contribute even more to the economic, social, cultural and ecological benefits experienced by residents city wide as well as local social actors (i.e., business, residents) in holistic ways.
A revisitation of how the City support those most vulnerable in society, as well as celebrate indigenous heritages in more holistic ways.
Strategy Questions
Strategy Definition
The project charter, or project terms of reference, should drive the analysis. The document has not been publicly shared. A charter amongst other things would define the strategy origins, project scope, project boundaries, land ownership, connections to strategic direction and policy including prioritization between them, roles and responsibilities between internal and external social actors, knowledge creation and dissemination, data collection, operationalization (implementation) of municipal services once approved, products and timelines. The project charter establishes power and agency between social actors. Sharing of the charter would allow an understanding of how this approach compares with with public engagement models provided in the literature by Sherry Arnstien (1969).
The strategy web page does share a document entitled Ten Things You Should Know About the OSRFS.” It shares a wide range of high level planner speak project elements, but not in a prioritized manner. Its kind of like a movie trailer for a foreign movie absent sub-titles.
Public Realm Definition
The strategy assumes that parks = sidewalks = parking lots = alleys = streets. The link between them is municipal land ownership, with no differentiation between function or programming, legal standing between them, existing partnership arrangements within them, or past/historical connections to them. I suspect there may be other city owned land not on the table for discussion. This could be resolved by a graphic showing all city owned lands in the study areas. The strategy appears to assume land titles can be moved around like chess pieces on a board irrespective of impact on existing uses (i.e., festivals, events and activities) no matter size, shape or configuration.
Institutional Setting
The strategy alludes to but fails to describe or acknowledge the social actors and their alliances (i.e., institutions) inherent in this strategy. Institutions are groups of like minded state and non-state actors who work together to achieve an outcome. Institutions have porous boundaries with the same or similar state and non-state actors in each. Clashes between institutions are not uncommon to meet the needs of a pluralistic society, and is not, nor should not be, deemed inappropriate. While these institutions intersect, their goals and outcomes can also support the other. Public processes can surface the institutions to allow them to connect, debate and develop joint solutions, or may privilege one or the other with or without discussion.
The Old Strathcona Public Realm strategy represents interfaces between the existing cultural hub, existing economic institutions (i.e., market housing, small business), and a sustainable city institution (i.e., affordable housing, transit orientated development, increased density).
The cultural/historical hub is composed of social actors engaged in history, theatre, the arts, festivals, parks, the farmers market and celebration of diverse communities (i.e., LGBTQS+). Their goal is to create a vibrant place of the celebration of arts and culture unique in the city. This is an institution led by community social actors that has been developed organically over time with support from administrators and elected officials.
The existing economic institutions are composed of entrepreneurs (i.e., (i.e., restaurants, bars, developers, etc.) festival creators and operators, theatres, landowners, NGOs, elected officials, and administrators. Their goal is to provide services and opportunities to the public, provide jobs, generate revenue if not profits, etc to support themselves and the community. This institution is led by business interests with support from elected officials, administrators and community social actors.
The sustainable city institution is composed of elected officials, administrators, environmentalists, affordable housing advocates/trusts, NGO’s, transit advocates, etc. Their goal is to create financially, socially and ecologically sustainable city with a reduced carbon footprint. This is an institution led by elected officials and administrators but with community social actors and advocates as well.
My take is that the strategy, as I see perceive it unfolding thus far, blurs these actors into a single undifferentiated group that will impair an understanding of impacts and how the strategy is ultimately operationalized.
Draft Strategy Development Options
The strategy description is as follows:
Each design idea would add to the total amount of open space in the area. The new open space would be classified as a mix of community parks, greenways and plazas. Features would include trees and other vegetation, places for shade (in summer) or warmth (in winter), washrooms and access to drinking water. People would be able to walk or bike on pathways and have places to rest, play and gather. Two of the design ideas propose to incorporate residential buildings (that would include affordable housing) between Gateway Boulevard and 102 Street. All three design ideas propose a residential building on an existing parking lot on 85 Avenue east of Light Horse Park.
My take - this is planner speak, focussed on property, and as such and it does not pay homage to the existing cultural/historical opportunities and activities and symbiotic business relationships with them (i.e., institution).
Draft Strategy Proposals - The Flummoxing of Parky McParkPlace
The strategy and proposals are counter-intuitive. How does one go from an unique internationally known organically grown cultural/heritage institution/site into a smaller public realm (options two and three), and/or remove public realm (parking lots in option one) designed to support the institution? How does it make sense to increase the population of the area on the public realm while simultaneously removing public spaces that would accommodate them?
A problem child of sustainable cities is low density residential development, not public lands. There is a considerable supply of single family residential homes in the area that could be purchased over time. Moreover, the loss of the public realm may militate against the cultural/historical program addressing social, health and wellness benefits.
I assume the loss of parking is intended to be replaced by existing transit access. This parking services the area festivals, activities, etc., and as such are not separate from the institutions itself. The entities that have grown and nurtured the historical/cultural institution are by their nature grass root organizations with little financial flexibility to withstand losses due to poor or perceived to be poor access.
Asset Summary
The area is rich in public and community cultural/social amenities, but sites and programs are not catalogued or described. The public lands include the Strathcona Farmers Market, a library, multiple but disconnected parks (Dr. McIntyre Park, Big Miller Park, End of Steel Park, Light Horse Park, Strathcona Park, Strathcona Community League). There are two churches and community and social services facilities and programs (YESS Emergency Resource Centre, Orange Hall). There is seniors housing (i.e., Trinity). There are multiple cultural venues (Yardbird Suite, Walterdale Theatre, Workshop West Playwright Theatre, Old Strathcona Performing Arts Centre) great locally owned and operated restaurants (i.e., Meat, The Next Act, etc.) in addition to food chain options of multiple kinds of culinary experiences. There is no discussion of the number, types and attendances of festivals (i.e., Fringe, Street Performers, Jazz City), nor a summary of the programs and activities provided by the Strathcona Community League. There are multiple murals provided in the area by visual artists. There is no discussion of the Old Strathcona Business Association activities, or the history of the Old Strathcona area itself. A quantitative and qualitative articulation of this information would describe how the cultural place/hub has been created and operationalized in a variety of public and private landholdings with and for the community.
Strategic Direction, Policies and Plan Complexities
What strategic direction or policies direct the strategy? What does each say? Where do directives overlap, support and/or compete with each other, and are prioritized (or not) in the strategy? How do they apply to each option? Who and how are the strategic directives prioritized?
The strategy references documents and provide links. However, linking to information does not facilitate an interrogation of the options for negotiation between institutional social actors. Directives referenced or cited include City Plan, Breathe, PlanWhyte, but there are other directives as well (i.e., land management policy, public engagement, Bylaw 2202 (the Parks Bylaw), reserve management, etc.
Affordable Housing
The strategy takes as a given that more multi-family housing = lower housing costs and is needed in this area. The strategy does not document existing low and high rise housing stock, the already zoned multi-family sites yet undeveloped, nor differentiates between apartment rentals vs condominium units. The strategy does not identify how many less-than-market value units already exist in the area, and what level of market reduced housing is planned or can be secured. There is no analysis of the quality of the existing housing stock in terms of special need populations.
Public Lands for Housing
The need for affordable housing is a legitimate well documented need. I would suggest that the need for city owned publicly programmed land for affordable housing is overstated.
There is a wealth of private undeveloped property across the city in areas in existing approved area/district plans, some already planned to be zoned multi-family housing. This development will occur organically based on market forces.
The relationships between home and work is changing, a change initiated or accelerated by Covid. More people are working from home. During covid people made more trips to their parks due to their proximity. So does it make sense to surplus city owned public lands?
On-line shopping is changing the way we purchase goods. Who hasn’t seen an Amazon, UPS or other van circling the neighbourhood dropping off parcels. Best Buy has been creating/piloting small retail storefronts replacing large big box stores. What is the long term impact of this on commercial lands? Heritage Mall has been redeveloped as a mixed use high density development. Media reports suggest downtown commercial lands are experiencing difficulty in attracting customers. Could these private land sources be repurposed for affordable housing, or higher density housing more generally?
Changes to processes (i.e., district planning and the zoning bylaw) allow high density development to occur across the City in multiple neighbourhoods on privately owned lands with little community input - another source of density.
Fourteen office buildings in Downtown Calgary are being redeveloped for housing, that suggests a similar opportunity exists here, yet no mention or city wide analysis. We also know downtown businesses in Edmonton are begging for more people downtown.
New public spaces in the downtown have been created in response to increased population density (i.e., Ice District, Warehouse Park), yet in this area the opposite appears to be motivation for the strategy.
Within the inventory of the City:
The City has a land development arm with land assets already purchased for development in suburban areas that could be developed as multi-family housing. How are those assets being assessed and changed to provide greater densities of development? Moreover, could this administrative entity re-train their focus on low density residential in mature areas of the city, instead of the suburbs?
It should also be noted that there are multiple city owned surplus school lots that have already designated for affordable housing (using inauthentic narratives and bad process), some since 2006, that remain green space. The city claimed at that time they would be used to address an affordable housing emergency. Some of those lots have not been developed.
Homelessness and Special Need Population Housing
Access to public realm lands for special need housing is a legitimate public discussion that should or could be explored. Have community NGOs (i.e., Homeward Trust) been engaged in this strategy? If they don’t come forward, will the land be simply sold to developers?
Finance Disconnect
The strategy implies that the sale of this public realm for (maybe, maybe not affordable) multi-family housing is the funding strategy, valuing existing lands as an economic asset. My take is that public realm already provide a financial dividend, and sales are an unnecessary short term strategy.
Great public realms (land) enhance property values and taxation, particularly those immediately adjacent to the land.
Great public realms and associated events are economic multipliers drawing participants and tourists from outside the city.
Great public realms draw patrons and volunteers to the area that also visit local businesses and hotels, increasing their property values, profits, taxation and charitable donations.
Trees and grassed areas reduce urban heat islands, reduce stormwater management costs, sequester pollution and remove pollutants from the air. All of these ecological goods and services reduce municipal costs.
All four collectively provide a cost recovery opportunity, not unlike investments in energy efficient upgrades and new environmental construction standards (i.e., Leed Standard Development), or even LRT extensions. Increased property tax revenues, jobs and business activity created by the cultural hub can support housing initiatives while simultaneously creating “go to”public places that provide social, cultural, economic and ecological goods and services.
Public Realm Design
Park design is based on program - the kinds of programs and activities to be accommodated and operationalized on site. Some general guidelines provide flexibility to accommodate changing needs over time. Consolidated square or rectangular spaces have the ability to adapt to changing needs, provide the least amount of lost program space, and offer the best opportunity to ensure visibility into and out of the site in support of CPTED principles. They also provide the best chance to take advantage of on-street parking, and are more cost efficient to maintain. Linear parks and natural areas are obvious exceptions.
The inventory of public lands has been not been holistically planned to support a great public place in any option. Worse, options 2 and 3 create multiple oddly shaped remnant parcels of green space masquerading as useful spaces.
Public Engagement
The City has undertaken a voluminous public engagement strategy with multiple opportunities and initiatives to gather ideas. However, the starting point of the strategy (i.e., land) is flawed, and it pre-configures the information generated. Nevertheless, I cannot see how the options reflect community priority of the data that was collected. The options seek to fit a round peg (i.e., city owned property development) into a square hole (i.e., historical/cultural place/institution). The data collection does provide a base of information that should be considered.
Project Scope
European cities have revisited roadway networks and turned them into parks, greenways and beaches, fulfilling sustainable city outcomes. Option 1 appears to create a single consolidated green space that is supported by the community engagement. But why stop here? Could we explore what has happened in Europe (e.g., Madrid, Paris) expanding the discussion to include Saskatchewan Drive and the River Valley connection (i.e., close Saskatchewan Drive to vehicular traffic), creating an amazing top of bank public lands opportunity connected to Option 1 of the public realm strategy?
Expanding the focus building on the cultural/historical institution will expand opportunities for great city building.
Final Thoughts
I would suggest the strategy needs to be re-racked, and start with the surfacing and prioritization of a cultural/historical program vision. That vision will include directives for the land base, and ways to address other corporate directives in this area. Economic interests and sustainable city advocates can be invited into this broader strategy, all of which can collectively nourish all three. Watch this space…